In her article “Excuse Me, Madam Speaker,” Dr. Jennifer Morse offers this eloquent explanation for why giving teenagers access to contraceptives will not prevent unwed pregnancies. She writes:
Having babies and raising them to responsible adulthood is a significant social investment. If the family around the child breaks down or never forms in the first place, the odds of the child being raised to responsible adulthood are greatly reduced. These young girls are having babies, not because their contraception has failed, not because they don’t know how to use contraception. They are having babies because they want to be loved. If Nancy Pelosi wants to save the taxpayer some money in the long run, she needs to stop investing in irresponsible sex, and start investing in responsible adult supervision and guidance of the young.
Extraordinary Moms Network 
“If the family around the child breaks down or never forms in the first place, the odds of the child being raised to responsible adulthood are greatly reduced.”
No. The child survives using survival mechanisms and learns to fend for themselves. Granted, they may fall behind their peers in this aspects because they *had* to teach themselves, but it doesn’t mean the end result will be indicative that they are any less than their peers.
LikeLike
A child that is “surviving” and a child that is “thriving” are two very different things. God designed the family, with parents passing on the information children will need in adulthood gradually, as they are developmentally able to handle it. The fact that some children do not have such parents, and manage somehow to “fend for themselves” does not mean that this arrangement is in his or her best interest. A child needs parents (whether biological or adoptive) to reach his or her full potential.
Are you seriously debating this? Didn’t your adoptive parents contribute to your development throughout your childhood and into young adulthood? True, they could not impart knowledge of Korean culture to you … but surely they contributed in other ways!
As to your final point, yes — children who are forced to “raise” themselves DO wind up behind their peers. Not in their value as human beings, but in their social and emotional development. Group homes can feed and clothe them … but for these other things, they need the individual attention only a parent can provide.
LikeLike
“The fact that some children do not have such parents, and manage somehow to “fend for themselves” does not mean that this arrangement is in his or her best interest. ”
I agree with you to an extent. It is not the best interesting, but it does happen. And it is not impossible to overcome, either.
“True, they could not impart knowledge of Korean culture to you …”
… you haven’t realized I’m not Korean?
“children who are forced to “raise” themselves DO wind up behind their peers.”
Actually, I meant to go back and delete that part of my comment, because I have an extended family member that I thought about just after I finished typing my previous comment that actually disproves that point.
LikeLike
My apologies. Not Korean … Taiwanese, if I remember correctly. In reality, of course, you’re AMERICAN, right?
Thanks for acknowledging the other points.
LikeLike
Nope, Canadian-Taiwanese.
Or Chinese, if people want to be so politically correct about it, whatever. (Personally I don’t care for the Chinese vs. Taiwanese debate.)
LikeLike